Back
2007 Supreme(Gau) 139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
H.N. Sarma, J.
Assam Brook Limited – Appellants
Vs.
Borgong Catholic Hospital – Respondent
Decided On: 14.02.2007
The discretionary power of the court under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC allows for the acceptance of additional documents at a later stage of the suit.
Headnote:
Order 7 Rule 14 CPC - Additional Documents - Summary of Order 7 Rule 14(1) and 14(3) of CPC and their interpretation by the court
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a Money Suit for recovery of medical service charges. The defendant contested the suit, and during the trial, the plaintiff filed additional documents, which were not submitted at the time of presenting the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the plaintiff to file the additional documents, considering the discretionary power under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC, and found no jurisdictional error in the trial judge's decision.
Issues: Acceptance of additional documents in the suit and compliance with Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Order 7 Rule 14(1) and 14(3) of CPC, emphasizing that the plaintiff may be permitted to produce documents at a later stage with the leave of the Court, and non-compliance does not necessarily vitiate the proceeding.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the trial judge was directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
H.N. Sarma, J.
1. The challenge made in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is an order dated 27.11.2006 passed in Money Suit No. 23 of 2003 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Karimganj.
2. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge accepted certain additional documents filed by the plaintiff in the suit, which were, admittedly, not filed at the time of presentation of the suit. The plaintiff/respondent instituted the aforesaid Money Suit, inter alia, praying for a decree for Rs.13,17,773/- against the defendant on account of medical services rendered to the patients of the defendant on diverse dates, pendentilite interest and for other reliefs. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed as many as 717 documents, which are the bills allegedly issued on different dates by the plaintiff to the employees of the defendant/petitioner.
3. The basic cause of action, as disclosed by the plaintiff, is at paragraph 6, which reads as follows:
That the plaintiff hospital treated hundreds of patients of Dhullie T.E. and (which included the patients of Dering out division also) thereafter individual bill of each patient so treated and medical service rendered at plaintiff hospital to their entire satisfaction, the plaintiff hospital to their entire satisfaction, the plaintiff hospital sent individual medical treatment bills of each patients to the defendant No. 2 at Dhullie Tea Estate for payment. But the defendants failed to make payment of the following bills of the plaintiff hospital till today and unjustly and wrongfully withholding legitimate money of the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff hospital made series of correspondences to the defendants urging and requesting them to make payments to the outstanding bills, but in vain. That a notice of demand by registered post A/D was served by the plaintiff through Advocate Sri A Goswami of Tezpur on the defendants on 04.03.2003 to make payment of the outstanding dues. Though the said notice was duly served on the defendants, but no payment was made by them. Therefore, the plaintiff hospital has no other alternative but to file the instant suit against the defendants before the Hon'ble Court for recovery of money for medical service rendered to the patients of the defendants on credit, pendentilite interest, future interest from 02.01.2003 which the defendants are liable to pay to plaintiff in law and equity.
4. The defendant/petitioner having contested the suit, the suit was set down for hearing and in the meantime, the affidavit evidence of PW 1 was filed but, PW 1 has not been cross-examined in view of the adjournments granted, as prayed for. At that stage, the plaintiff by filing an application under Order 7, Rule 14(3) and Order 13, Rule4 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC submitted a good number of documents, which are stated to be the prescriptions issued by the plaintiff to different employees of the defendant/petitioner praying for acceptance of those documents in the suit. At paragraph 3 of the said application, it is, inter alia, stated that those documents were mislaid and mixed with several bunches of other papers and documents in the plaintiffs Hospital and could not be easily traces out earlier at the time of filing the Plaint and also at the time of filing the affidavit (in-chief) of PW 1 and during extensive search for talks of compromise and as advised by the advocates the said documents could be found out by the plaintiff hospital only recently and handed over the same to its Advocates for the needful. The defendant/petitioner filed two written objections opposing the said prayed.
5. The learned Trial Judge heard on the issues on 27.11.2006 and passed the impugned order allowing the plaintiff to file the documents, as prayed for. The one of the consideration for acceptance of the documents by the learned Trial Judge was that when the suit was posted for cross-examination of PW 1, since 10.03.05, the cross-examination of PW 1 w
